APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EVALUATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EVALUATION
C.1 INTRODUCTION C-1
C.2 MINORITY POPULATION COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION C-3
C.3 INCOME DISTRIBUTION C-5
C.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS C-5
C.4.1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS C-5
C.4.2 HEALTH EFFECTS C-8
C.5 CONCLUSION C-9
APPENDIX C REFERENCES C-11
LIST OF TABLES
C-1 Minority Composition of Counties in Socioeconomic Region of
Influence in Washington C-6
C-2 Minority Composition of Cities and Towns with Populations Greater
than 2,500 in Benton, Franklin, and Yakima Counties C-7
C-3 Low-Income Persons in the Region of Influence, 1989 C-8
LIST OF FIGURES
C-1 Socioeconomic Region of Influence for Hanford Site in Washington C-4
APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EVALUATION
C.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix considers minority and low-income populations that have the
potential to be affected by actions at the Hanford Site.
E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations, directs Federal agencies to identify
and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority and low-income populations (E.O. 12898). E.O. 12898 Section 3-302
(c) (2) states that, "Each Federal agency ... shall ... analyze ...
information for areas surrounding Federal facilities that are: (2) expected to
have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on
surrounding populations."
E.O. 12898 also directs the Administrator of the EPA to convene an interagency
Federal Working Group on environmental justice. The Working Group is directed
to provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for identifying
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority and low-income populations. The Working Group has not yet issued the
guidance directed by E.O. 12898, although it has developed draft working
definitions. The approach to evaluating environmental justice used in this
document is consistent with the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research
Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (DOE 1995). This approach may change as a result
of future guidance issued by the Working Group or DOE. The conclusions are
not expected to change because, based on the analyses prepared for this EIS,
the impacts resulting from the proposed action under all alternatives present
no significant risk to the population.
This analysis uses the following draft definitions:
. Minority - Individuals classified by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as
Negro/Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander,
American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other non-White persons. The
minority population in an affected area is the number of individuals
residing in the area who are members of a minority group.
. Low-Income Community - An area for which the median household income is
80 percent or below the median household income for the metropolitan
statistical area (urban) or county (rural). While "80 percent" is used
in this analysis based on definitions used by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, this percentage may change in the final
guidelines under preparation by the Working Group and the DOE.
. Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects - Any human
health effects, including cumulative or synergistic effects, on minority
or low-income populations which substantially exceed generally accepted
levels of risk. This draft definition prepared by the Working Group
might change during preparation of the final guidelines.
. Substantially Affect Human Health - To impact human health such that
there is a measurable incidence of any specific illness, disease, or
disorder significantly higher than the national average. This is also a
draft definition developed by the Working Group which might change
during preparation of final guidelines.
With respect to the alternatives considered in this EIS, environmental justice
issues are concerned with either socioeconomic conditions or health effects
due to emissions.
Socioeconomic issues include the potential for direct effect in terms of
disproportionately more layoffs among low-income or minority employees and
indirect local economic effects on minority or low-income populations. Where
local economies are dependent on one industry, there is substantial potential
for indirect effects from fluctuations in activity in this industry. The
Hanford Site represents a substantial portion of the area's labor force. In
the high growth periods of boom-bust cycles, population influx tends to drive
housing values up, which can make housing unaffordable for low-income persons.
During business contractions, business activity drops, and unemployment rises.
Health effects are effects to off-site populations due to emissions from the
Hanford Site. Emissions from alternatives considered in this EIS have been
evaluated in terms of their health effects on the population residing within
80 km (50 mi) of the Hanford Site.
For each of the areas of technical analysis presented in this Final EIS, a
review of impacts to the human and natural environment was conducted to
determine if any potentially disproportionate, significant, and adverse
impacts on minority populations or low-income populations were identified.
The Hanford Site's "region of influence" for socioeconomic issues in the State
of Washington is generally recognized to be Yakima, Grant, Adams, Franklin,
Benton, Walla Walla, and Columbia Counties. Figure C-1 illustrates the region
of influence for the Hanford Site. The analysis examines impacts under
construction, routine operations, and accident conditions. If an adverse
impact was identified, a determination was made whether minority populations
or low-income populations were disproportionately impacted.
The population characteristics discussed in the following sections include:
. Minority population composition and distribution
. Income distribution
C.2 MINORITY POPULATION COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION
Hispanics, residing predominantly in Franklin, Yakima, Grant, and Adams Counties, and Native Americans, residing primarily in Yakima County, are the area's principal minority groups. The dominant minority group in the region of influence is Hispanic people. Hispanics comprised nearly 81 percent of the minority population surrounding the Hanford Site at the time of the 1990 census. Hispanic people constitute 8 percent of Benton County's population and 30 percent of Franklin County's population. Other counties in the region of influence which have relatively large concentrations of Hispanic peoples are Adams, Grant, and Walla Walla. Tables C-1 and C-2 present breakdowns of minority populations by county and city, respectively. The Hanford Site is also surrounded by a relatively large percentage (about 8 percent) of Native Americans, due to the presence of the Yakama Indian Reservation and tribal headquarters in the State of Washington. Figure (Page C-4) Figure C-1. Socioeconomic Region of Influence for Hanford Site in Washington
C.3 INCOME DISTRIBUTION
As presented in Table C-3, the area's low-income population is dispersed throughout the region, with the highest concentrations occurring in Franklin, Columbia, Yakima, Grant, and Adams Counties. Benton County has the lowest percentage of persons classified as having an income lower than the poverty threshold. At 23 percent, Franklin County has the highest percentage. These percentages reflect the economic base of the two counties. Benton County is more dependent upon the Hanford Site for its economic base, while Franklin County has a higher dependence upon agricultural activities.
C.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential impacts of the alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed to determine whether any minority or low-income populations could be disproportionately impacted. The analysis focused on: . Socioeconomic Impacts . Health Effects.
C.4.1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Based on the magnitude and type of other activities in the area and analyses performed for this EIS, no socioeconomic impacts to the region of influence are anticipated.
Minority Composition of Counties in
Socioeconomic Region of Influence in Washington
Native Pacific
White Hispanic Black American Asian Islander Other
Total
Population
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
County 4,866,692 4,308,937 89 214,570 4 149,801 3 81,483 2 195,918 4 15,040 0 115,513 2
Adams 13,603 9,100 67 4,467 33 31 0 64 0 89 1 4 0 4,315 32
Benton 112,560 102,832 91 8,624 8 1,085 1 861 1 2,157 2 89 0 5,536 5
Columbia 4,024 3,874 96 463 12 1 0 27 1 16 0 - 0 106 3
Franklin 37,473 26,917 72 11,316 30 1,310 3 263 1 847 2 22 0 8,114 22
Grant 54,758 46,976 86 9,427 17 599 1 568 1 608 1 33 0 5,974 11
Walla 48,439 43,290 89 4,703 10 720 1 359 1 566 1 59 0 3,445 7
Walla
Yakima 188,823 139,514 74 45,114 24 1,938 1 8,405 4 1,825 1 97 0 37,044 20
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1992a
U.S. Department of Commerce 1992b
Minority Composition of Cities and Towns with Populations Greater
than 2,500 in Benton, Franklin, and Yakima Counties
Asian &
Native Pacific
White Hispanic Black American Islander Other
County/ Total
Town Persons
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Benton County
Richland 32,354 30,022 93 1,112 3 366 1 234 1 1,118 3 614 2
Kennewick 42,155 38,003 90 3,578 8 411 1 273 1 771 2 2,697 6
West 4,323 3,763 87 61 1 19 0 19 0 80 2 442 11
Richland
Prosser 4,476 3,617 81 1,038 23 5 0 18 0 48 1 788 18
Franklin County
Pasco 20,337 12,175 60 8,392 41 1,125 6 250 1 499 2 6,288 31
Yakima County
Grandview 7,169 3,883 54 3,443 48 107 2 7 0 13 0 3,159 44
Sunnyside 11,238 5,481 49 6,417 57 70 1 34 0 44 0 5,609 50
Toppenish 7,419 2,660 36 4,655 63 51 1 646 9 27 0 4,035 54
Wapato 3,795 1,217 32 2,450 65 12 0 343 9 74 2 2,149 57
Union Gap 3,012 2,473 82 513 17 4 0 81 3 56 2 398 13
Yakima 54,831 45,248 82 8,700 16 1,382 3 1,207 2 680 1 6,314 12
Selah 5,113 4,731 92 334 7 45 1 57 1 28 1 252 5
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1993a
U.S. Department of Commerce 1993b
Low-Income Persons in the Region of Influence, 1989
Totals for all Persons
Below % Below
Total Poverty Level Poverty Level
County 4,741,003 517,933 11
Adams 13,479 2,360 18
Benton 111,634 12,402 11
Columbia 3,910 757 19
Franklin 36,926 8,491 23
Grant 54,165 10,631 20
Walla Walla 44,520 7,144 16
Yakima 185,355 37,486 20
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1993c
U.S. Department of Commerce 1993d
While no increase in the Hanford facility's permanent operational workforce is
anticipated, under the various alternatives, up to 185 temporary workers would
be employed during the expected construction period of up to 36 months. This
workforce increase can be sustained by site and local infrastructure,
particularly since nearly 5,000 contractor and Federal employee positions have
been eliminated at the Hanford Site in 1995. The full labor complement could
be supplied from the local area, depending on the availability of appropriate
labor skills.
C.4.2 HEALTH EFFECTS
Routine emissions would be within allowable limits, and normal emissions at the site boundary would be well within legal limits, which are protective of human health. The only persons potentially affected by routine emissions from any alternative would be Hanford Site personnel and appropriate measures are taken to protect worker health on-site. Under normal activities associated with the various alternatives, the dominant health effects were shown in Section 5 and Appendix E to be potential exposures received by the workers in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Exposures to workers are readily controlled through engineered systems and work practices to prevent workers from receiving high doses of radiation or chemical emissions. Work areas are monitored and workers participate in continuous monitoring programs so that exposures are restricted to well within allowable limits.
C.5 CONCLUSION
Potential socioeconomic and human health effects have been evaluated with regard to their possible impacts to minority and low-income populations. Within 80 km (50 mi.) of the Hanford Site, minority groups comprise approximately 25 percent of the population, with concentrations in directions northeast, southeast, and southwest of the site. Within the same area, 42 percent of households are classified as low-income. Areas where more than 50 percent of households are low-income populations are located relatively close to the Hanford Site (DOE 1995). Socioeconomic impacts due to the creation of temporary jobs for any of the alternatives are relatively minor in comparison to the larger impacts of planned workforce reduction at the Hanford Site. Nearly 5,000 contractor and Federal employee positions are being eliminated at the Hanford Site in 1995. The temporary employment provided by construction of the new facilities would amount to less than 5 percent of the planned workforce reductions. Thus, significant socioeconomic impacts are not anticipated, and minority and low- income populations would not be impacted. The new job opportunities associated with the proposed project could provide low-income groups with employment depending on availability of appropriate labor skills. Based on the accident analyses performed for the alternatives presented within this EIS, the likelihood of a potential health effect to the off-site population is extremely unlikely to incredible (see Table F-1 for accident frequency terminology) for the preferred alternative and new storage alternative. For the truck and rail transfer alternatives, health effects to the off-site population from an accident are considered unlikely. For the no action alternative, health effects to the off-site population from an accident are considered extremely unlikely. While the probabilities of such accidents can be calculated, they are not anticipated. Therefore, adverse human health or environmental effects are not expected for any member of the public, and no minority or low-income population will be disproportionately affected.
APPENDIX C REFERENCES
DOE, 1995, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, Volume 2, Appendix A, Environmental Justice Analysis, DOE/EIS-0218D "Executive Order 12898, February 11, 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Environmental Justice Guidance, Federal Register/Vol. 59, No. 32, Wednesday, February 16, 1994 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993a, 1990 Census of Population, "Population and Housing Unit Counts", Oregon, CPH-2-39, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993b, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, "Population and Housing Unit Counts", Washington, CPH-2-49, Bureau of the Census, March 1993 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993c, 1990 Census of Population, "Social and Economic Characteristics", Oregon, CP-2-39, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Interior, Section 1 of 2, September 1993 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993d, 1990 Census of Population, "Social and Economic Characteristics", Washington, CP-2-49, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Interior, Section 2 of 2, September 1993 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992a, 1990 Census of Population, "General Population Characteristics", Washington, CP-1-49, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, June 1992 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992b, 1990 Census of Population, "General Population Characteristics", Oregon, CP-1-39, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, June 1992
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
